AMD will be OK thanks to the new FX-8xxx line-up.

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by FalseChristian, Nov 13, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vesku

    Vesku Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    4.6-4.8 is about all that can be expected outside of H100 cooling or better. Still, it's a decent chip, it's offset most of the complaints regarding the FX x1xx series considering they use the same node.
     
  2. hokies83

    hokies83 Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    0
    That guy is full of crap.. I asked him to do a bench off with me and he told me to quit PMing him.. cause all dude has is a Cpu-z validation ...

    Soon as he posted in that club thread that a 8350 was faster then a 3770k clock for clock i laughed so hard i spit all over my monitor...

    And when i asked him to put up or shut up... " Please do not PM me Again"

    Not hard to do bro... http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2549815
     
    #52 hokies83, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  3. happysmiles

    happysmiles Senior member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    0
    and where is AMDs marketing?

    why create such products yet spend more time saying what you're gonna do next in graphs.
     
  4. hokies83

    hokies83 Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    0

    Amd Marketing for 8xxx "give high factory clock" So they look faster then they really are in benchmarks so we can take advantage of stupid people.

    Maybe people will not figure out that if you overclock the intel chips clock for clock it destroys us.
     
  5. SlowSpyder

    SlowSpyder Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,133
    Likes Received:
    4

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.

    But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.

    Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock. :)
     
  6. Rvenger

    Rvenger Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    6,292
    Likes Received:
    4
    nvm
     
    #56 Rvenger, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  7. Skurge

    Skurge Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    0
    The FX8320/50 Generally clock higher than the Intel chips especially IB. When both are OC'd, they still win and lose at the same things.
     
  8. wenboy

    wenboy Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always thought 4300 is priced similiar to I3, but I was wrong. I found that 6300 is priced in the similar I3 range ... :(
     
  9. mrmt

    mrmt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Puppies04

    Puppies04 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,897
    Likes Received:
    1
    Anything that the 8350 is better at with stock clocks is blatantly highly multi-threaded as we all know what AMDs single threaded performance is like. At the same time anything highly multi-threaded forces the 2500K (or any other intel chip with turbo enabled) to run at its slowest possible turbo frequency, 3.4ghz?. The fact you can spend 5 minutes in the bios and add 30% to this speed with a $20 aftermarket cooler is the reason the intel chip will come top in more benchmarks once both chips are overclocked.

    P.S I have owned 3 2500Ks and built 5 more rigs with them and the 30% overclock I mention above is the minimum I have attained, every chip has easily hit 40%+ but when considering heat, power draw and longevity some have been left at a 30% overclock
     
  11. Yuriman

    Yuriman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,697
    Likes Received:
    1
    I can pretty much get behind this. 9 cases out of 10 I'd recommend an i5 over an FX-83xx but there are scenarios where an FX isn't a bad choice. Since an i3 is multiplier locked, I'd say it's disadvantaged to an FX-63xx more often than not, assuming you're going to overclock it. I'd still probably go with an i3 if I built my father a PC but for enthusiasts perhaps not.
     
  12. soccerballtux

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    12,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    before my time, context please?
     
  13. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    When the US Invaded Iraq in 2003, and was steamrolling the crap out of the Iraqi military (US is good at that, terrible at actual occupation duty), we were in Baghdad pressing into the city, and the Iraqi Information Minister kept saying 'everything is ok, no US people here, we are driving them out'. Lol. I think they kept broadcasting those messages even after Baghdad was lost.

    It's the epitome of denial.
     
  14. Ferzerp

    Ferzerp Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,107
    Likes Received:
    1
    Baghdad Bob...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

     
  15. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are tons of members out there of various sites with SB and even IB at a good bit past 5Ghz+, but I don't count them, as they are either running unsafe volts and/or extreme cooling + suicide run.

    Also, have you seen the power usage start to explode on 8350 past 4.5Ghz? It goes up really fast really high. At 5.3Ghz it would probably be way over 300W for CPU alone, maybe even closing on 400W. Regardless, 4.8-4.9 seems to be the high end of air overclock with good cooling for 8350, and even at there it sucks a TON of juice.
     
  16. Smartazz

    Smartazz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    6,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.
     
  17. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    It really has to do with what the competition is like. An Nvidia card capable of performing like your 7950 uses not much of a different power profile. That's a giant contrast to say 2500k @ 4.8 vs. 8350 @ 4.8. When you're talking well over 100W difference or more, that begins to demand not only a more expensive cooler to maintain, but a more expensive power supply as well. And if you're cutting it close, then you have to be more careful with GPU options.
     
  18. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    At 4.8Ghz, an 8350 used 364W (!!!), contrast that to 3770K @ 4.8ghz using only 244W. That eats a lot of potential wattage you could use for GPUs. (per Bit-Tech).

    I will admit handily that the 8350 is a huge improvement over 8150 in that regard though!
     
  19. frozentundra123456

    frozentundra123456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    8,989
    Likes Received:
    19
    It is not just the power, it is the performance you get for that power. If it were faster in the wide majority of apps, I dont think so many people would criticize AMDs power usage. The problem is that in most apps it is slower and uses more power as well.

    To phrase it in terms of a graphics card, more power used gets more performance. Not necessarily so with Bulldozer.
     
  20. Rifter

    Rifter Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    8,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.

    More than in half when taking OCing into account, these chips are not worth bothering with to OC due to the absurd power useage numbers.
     
  21. SlowSpyder

    SlowSpyder Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,133
    Likes Received:
    4

    Some might say the same about an i7 930 @ 4.2GHz and 1.35 volts. ;)

    For the record I pretty much agree with you, AMD's power consumption is the biggest problem in my opinion. More so than overall performance.
     
  22. Rifter

    Rifter Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    8,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    I am aware my 930@1.35v is sucking back the juice, but so was everything else 3-4 years ago :) We aint talking about 3-4 year old tech anymore though AMD has to get with the times.
     
  23. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMD resigned themselves to having virtually no control over their fate in terms of power-consumption characteristics of the future nodes with which they aim to leverage in competing against Intel when they elected to spin out their fabs.

    Once they did that they basically limited themselves to competing only with other fabless companies (like Nvidia and Qualcomm, but not Intel).

    That was the decision - buy ATI and sell-off the fabs, or invest $5.4B into the future of process technology. Intel decided to go with the process technology choice and it shows.
     
  24. SlowSpyder

    SlowSpyder Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,133
    Likes Received:
    4

    My Thuban agrees with you. ;)
     
  25. mrmt

    mrmt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you really think that AMD the smallest idea they were making that trade off? The ATI decision predates Conroe, and the GLF deal three years after was simply rushed. I think AMD management weren't ready for Conroe, which wiped them out of the high end market, but more important, they weren't ready for tick-tock, which placed a competitive pressure that AMD could not bear.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.